Develop Reference

Assign different types of variable to one type

As a very simplified and stupid example of what I'm dealing with, suppose I had the following class with a simple static int property:
public class MyClass
{
public static int MyVar { get; set; }
}
So, if I wanted to set that property via code, it would be easy enough with something such as:
MyClass.MyVar = 2;
But, how could I take care of (again, to simplify the example) passing in a string and have it converted to an int?
The only way I could think of doing it is to create a helper method such as:
public class MyClass
{
public static int MyVar { get; private set; }
public static void SetMyVar(string sMyVar)
{
MyVar = int.Parse(sMyVar);
}
}
And then in code run:
MyClass.SetMyVar("2");
I would love to know if there was a better way to accomplish this than having to add in that extra method.

Although you definitely shouldn't do this because it's confusing to read, you could create the property this way
class MyClass
{
private static int _property = 0;
public static object Property
{
get
{
return _property;
}
set
{
_property = Convert.ToInt32(value);
}
}
}
You would have to cast this to an int whenever you wanted to use it as an integer but this is best I could think of.

is this what you were trying to do?
class newclass
{
private static int MyVarValue = 0;
public static int MyVar
{
get;
set
{
MyVarValue = Convert.ToInt32(value);
}
}
}
This would not compile because the value that a property gets set to has to be of the same type as the property itself. But if you are taking a list of objects in a constructor and assigning them to the properties, there you can do something like this...
class newclass
{
private static int MyVarValue = 0;
public newclass(List<object> startingList)
{
MyVarValue = Convert.ToInt32(startingList[0]);
}
}

You can use the compiler's method overload resolution to pick a SetMyValue method depending on the type of the argument. Inside each SetMyValue method you have a mechanism to convert all of the different input values to the same underlying type.
Doing this is probably a bad idea - but here goes anyway. It doesn't have quite the semantics that you're asking for but it's close:
//A class with multiple 'set' methods that will silently handle
//type conversions
class MyClass{
private int myValue;
public int MyValue { { get return this.myValue; } }
public void SetMyValue(int value){
this.myValue = value;
}
public void SetMyValue(string value){
this.myValue = Convert.ToInt32(value);
}
}
In statically typed languages, switching types silently in a way that loses information is not a very wise idea. There are other, dynamically typed languages that let you play fast and loose with types but C# is not one of them. You have to go out of your way in C# to get dynamic typing.
Doing this is probably a pain in the butt from a maintenance standpoint. I would put some more thought into the underlying problem that you're trying to solve that lead to this question.

what the best way to declare a property

I'm switching from Objective-C to C# to start using the Unity engine. So I'm trying to soak in all the C# differences. Obj-C has the #synthesize that auto creates the getters and setters. To to be honest they're sort of new to me. In Obj-C I'd often do:
#synthesize myProperty = _myProperty;
Then use the _myProperty in the local class code and access that property outside of this class using myProperty. Or more accurately classInstance.myProperty.
Also in Obj-C you can declare a property to be readonly and not worry about accidentally changing it's value outside the class.
In C# I'm trying to write proper object oriented code and I struggle with this. I'm a C coder at heart and am comfortable having access to everything everywhere, which I know is bad and unnecessary. I also don't want to expose tons of properties to the GameObject Inspector. I prefer to do as much programmatically as possible.
So what is the best way to declare properties so I can access them from another class but also so they are not exposed in the Inspector? Here are some possibilities that I've encountered and used:
// 1. public static - public without being exposed in inspector
public static int myProperty;
// 2. the public _text doesn't appear in the inspector but the text one does.
public string _text;
public string text {
get { return _text; }
set {
_text = value;
}
}
// 3. private _underscore version with no setter - does removing the set make it read only?
private float _current;
public float current {
get { return _current; }
}
// 4. creating my own getter function
private int myValue;
...
int GetMyValue() {
return myValue;
}
Also.. I read somewhere that in .NET you shouldn't use underscores in property names. I don't really know what the underscore version of the property does or represents. I thought in Obj-C it effected the scope, but don't really know.
Am I even correct in calling variables properties?
Someone suggested prop tab tab which produces this:
public object MyProperty {
get;
set;
}
Unfortunately that doesn't really answer my question about read only. Is an int or string even an object? It's not in Obj-C.

Public variables (not fields) are shown in the Unity inspector. If you want a public variable to be hidden, you can preface it with NonSerialized, like this:
[System.NonSerialized]
public bool m_HideWhenInactive = false;
You can also avoid this problem entirely by making it a property. No properties are shown in the inspector:
public bool m_HideWhenInactive { get; set; }
As a fun bonus (not your question, I know), you can have a property that's world-read, private-write:
public bool m_HideWhenInactive { get; private set; }
And finally, if you DO want a variable to be serialized and stored in a prefab, but you don't want the designers editing it (if you intend to write a custom editor class), there's a different annotation for that:
[HideInInspector]
public bool m_HideWhenInactive = false;
Static fields are never shown in the inspector.

The NonSerialized and HideInspector attributes are the two options you must consider to hide members of the class from the Unity inspector. NonSerialized is not specific to Unity, HideInspector is specific to Unity. Unity looks for both of these attribute in your compiled code to determine what gets exposed in the inspector.
If you want a publicly read only property you declare it like so...
[System.NonSerialized]
private string _text;
/// <summary>
/// Gets the Text
/// </summary>
/// <remarks>May be set within this class or derived classes</remarks>
public string Text {
get { return _text; }
protected set {
_text = value;
}
}
You seem to be having issues with the meaning of access modifiers...
See this page...
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/wxh6fsc7.aspx
Briefly...
public = accessible from anywhere, do not declare backing variables on properties as public, otherwise people can simply skip your property accessor.
protected = accessible within your class and from classes inheriting the class
internal = accessible within the same assembly
protected internal = accessible within the same assembly and from
classes inheriting the class
private = accessible only within your class
You can do away with backing variables simply by declaring
/// <summary>
/// Gets or sets the Text
/// </summary>
public string Text { get; set; }
/// <summary>
/// Gets the current
/// </summary>
public float Current { get; protected set; }
Since the advent of auto-implemented variables, there are no technical reasons for creating properties with backing variables unless you have additional logic you would like executed on the get and/or set.
e.g you wanted to create Observable entities that raise an event when a property is changed...
private int _id;
public int ID
{
get
{
return _id;
}
set
{
if (_id != value)
{
OnIDChanging(value);
ReportPropertyChanging("ID");
_id = StructuralObject.SetValidValue(value);
ReportPropertyChanged("ID");
OnIDChanged();
}
}
}
In terms of coding standards, there are plenty of them on the net. I'd recommend IDesign's...
http://www.idesign.net/downloads/getdownload/1985
You'll notice I changed the casing on the code you posted, the casing I've used adhere's to IDesign's naming guidelines

The correct way to create properties really depends on what it is you're trying to accomplish. If you're only wanting to have a property be created for further use you can create the shorthand way:
public object MyProperty { get; set; }
If more functionality is required, you can add additional functionality, such as:
private int _myInt;
public int MyInt {
get { return this._name; }
set {
if (this._name == 1) {
this._name = value;
} else {
this._name = 0;
}
}
}
The answer of your question is it simply depends on what it is you're looking to achieve and both ways are accepted.
The use of getter and setter methods, such as those found in Java, are frowned upon in C#.
To answer your other question, String is an object in C#. int is a primitive type.

Here's a quick summary of your problems.
There is a so called snippet in C# that allows you to quickly generate code. The quick shortcut for it is typing prop and then pressing tab which would generate a code to something like this.
public int MyProperty { get; set; }
Now if you're going to create fields, and you dont want to expose that to an instance. You should make it private.
Example
private int myVar; // private is not exposed on instances only public properties are
public int MyProperty
{
get { return myVar; }
set { myVar = value; }
}
Now for static fields, static fields/properties are type accessible. So to hide them, you only have to make them private
Example
private static bool myProp; // can't be accessed on the Program Type
public static bool MyProp { get; set; } // can be accessed on the Program Type
class MyClass
{
public MyClass()
{
Program.MyProp = true;
Program.myProp= true; // wont build
}
}
If you want it to be readonly and prevent modification, you can do it like this.
public int MyProperty { get; private set; } // can get but not set
private int myVar;
public int MyProperty
{
get { return myVar; } // same as the top but with a field
}
For a deeper and better understanding, please do read about What are Access Modifiers in C#?

Property patterns in the context of the Unity engine tend to differ slightly to the 'norm' of C# because of you are often interested in making them tweakable data in the editor. This means serialization.
Unity cannot serialize properties
Unity can serialize fields of primitive types and types inheriting from UnityEngine.Object are serialized references
Unity can serialize list and arrays of the types mentioned above as well
Serialized fields on MonoBehaviours are exposed in the editor and are editable
public fields are serialized by default and private fields if they are marked with the [SerializeField] attribute.
Unity also serializes fields on classes marked with [System.Serializable] if the class is a field on a MonoBehavior
For a more in-depth discussion see: https://blogs.unity3d.com/2014/06/24/serialization-in-unity/
The following pattern is common, the backing field can be set by the developer, without needing to recompile, and cannot be changed by external code at run-time.
[SerializeField]
private int editableInEditor;
public int NotEditableInEditor
{
get { return editableInEditor; }
}
So is this pattern, a lazy-getter.
private DerivedMonoBehaviour component;
public DerivedMonoBehaviour Component
{
get
{
if(component == null)
{
// Note: Using the null-coalescing operator ??
// is inadvisable when dealing with UnityEngine.Object
// references.
// See: https://blogs.unity3d.com/2014/05/16/custom-operator-should-we-keep-it/
component = GetComponent<DerivedMonoBehaviour>();
}
return component;
}
}

Object A has a List of Object B, Proper Way for Object B to Alter Class A?

I've done my best to research this issue on my own, but I've been unable to find a good answer. Most likely because I don't know the proper way to ask the question. So I'm just going to throw everything out there.
This is the basic structure of the two classes I have. (Obviously not actual code.)
class ship
{
public int baseStat = 0; //I want this to be protected
public int derivedStat = 0; //This should also be protected
public int DerivedStat{ get { return derivedStat ; } }
private List<Component> components;
public void DeriveStats()
{
foreach(Component component in components)
{
component.DeriveStats(this);
}
}
}
class Component
{
public void DeriveStats(Ship ship)
{
ship.derivedStat = ship.baseStat + 5;
}
}
This all works just fine, I have many different types of Component subclasses that do different things to the ship and it's stats, but with this setup, all stats are viewable and modifiable outside the ship class. Design wise, this doesn't seem correct, and frankly, it's driving me bonkers.
Is there a cleaner/more correct way I can approach this?
EDIT-
Big thank you to everyone who commented and gave an answer, it was a huge help. In case anyone else stumbles upon this question, here's how I went about addressing the issue.
abstract class Ship
{
//Locking variable that only allows the ship's stats to be updated when true
private bool _isModifying = false;
//General Stats that define a ship******************************
//Layers of shields
protected int baseShields;
public int DerivedShields
{
get{ return DerivedShields; }
set
{
if (_isModifying)
DerivedShields = value;
else
throw (new Exception("Ship stats cannot be modified outside the ship class."));
}
}
//**************************************************************
protected List<Component> installedComponents;
public void DeriveStats()
{
_isModifying = true;
foreach (Component component in installedComponents)
{
component.DeriveStats(this);
}
_isModifying = false;
}
}
class BasicShield : Component
{
public override void DeriveStats(Ship ship)
{
ship.DerivedShields = ship.DerivedShields + 1;
}
}

Add methods to Ship that will allow others to alter Ship but gives Ship the responsibility for and ability to ensure its own consistency. This means that
external parties can request that Ship be updated, but Ship can deny such requests if they would violate some constraint (or if Ship just doesn't feel like being updated for whatever reason).
you can give these methods names that convey the semantics of the operation, while you decouple the implementation details of Ship from the rest of your program. You gain the freedom to change the way you represent a Ships internal state.
EDIT:
If you want each Component to implement the algorithm that determines the new stats, you could
Make the ship's properties be read-only (they will have to be visible for the component to make its calculations)
Make the component's DeriveStats(...) method return the calculated value
Make the ship itself call DeriveStats(...) and update its values accordingly.
This has the added benefit that the ship is in charge of aggregating results from different components. As the components don't know about each other, how would they ever coordinate who gets to decide the ship's stats?

I can think of 2 ways
The component should calculate stuff (stats in yr case) and return it. The the ship class updates itself with the returned value
...
public void DeriveStats()
{
foreach(Component component in components)
{
derivedStat = component.DeriveStats(this);
}
}
class Component
{
public int DeriveStats(Ship ship)
{
return ship.baseStat + 5;
}
}
The ship has an UpdateStats method that the components call.
...
public void DeriveStats()
{
foreach(Component component in components)
{
component.DeriveStats(this);
}
}
}
class Component
{
public void DeriveStats(Ship ship)
{
ship.UpdateStats(ship.baseStat + 5);
}
}

First, you can declare your properties like this so they are protected.
public int BaseStat ( get; protected set; }
public int DerivedStat { get; protected set; }
Secondly, based on the scenario described, the following might be a better property for you. Or, if you don't want it continuously calculated you can update the protected property from 'Ship' in a similar manner.
public int DerivedStat
{
get
{
var derivedStat = 0;
foreach (var component in components)
{
derivedStat += baseStat + 5;
}
return derivedStat;
}
}

If I read your question correctly, you are nearly there with public int DerivedStat{ get { return derivedStat ; } } - using accessors for your should-be-protected fields. In this very basic example, you can do some validation in the set method, as shown below. That way, other classes won't see the internal structure of your ship, but they can attempt to modify it.
What about the following:
class ship
{
protected int baseStat = 0; //I want this to be protected - now it is
private int derivedStat = 0; //This should also be protected - can even be private
public int DerivedStat {
get
{
return derivedStat;
}
set
{
if(value < 0)
throw new Exception("Validate your data here!");
derivedStat = value;
}
}
}

you can use properties to keep the same base stat, and calculate the ship's effective stat based off it's components.
class Ship
{
private int _baseStat = 0; //I want this to be protected
public int CalculatedStat
{
get
{
int result = _baseStat;
foreach(Component component in components)
{
result += component.Modifier
// you'll have to add modifier to Component yourself
// in this case, you'd set it to 5
}
return result;
}
...

Via event on B handled by A...
A can register to B's events on addition of an A to its collection and unregister upon removal by using an ObservableCollection and monitoring its changes.

How to make a property set itself using {} instead of ;?

Here is an interesting tidbit where I could not really find on the interwebs. The idea is that if you have a property such as int a { get; set; } it could set itself.
How do you make the property set itself with int a { get { } set { } }?
What is happening inside of set;?
Here is what I tried to do:
public string Symbol { get { return Symbol; } set { Symbol = value; NotifyPropertyChangedEvent("Symbol"); } }
But it obviously creates a Stack Overflow because it is essentially calling itself over and over.
And I don't want to create 10-20 private variables to work along side of my properties, I want to know what is happening in set;.
Thank you.

set; just creates a private variable that you can't see. You'll need those 10-20 private variables, sorry.

You have to create private variables.
Unfortunately, that's the only way in the specific circumstance you have here.

If you need custom logic, you'll need to provide the backing field yourself:
private string symbol;
public string Symbol
{
get { return symbol; }
set { symbol = value; NotifyPropertyChangedEvent("Symbol"); }
}
And I don't want to create 10-20 private variables to work along side of my properties, I want to know what is happening in set;.
With an automaticaly property (ie: public string Symbol { get; set; }), the compiler creates the backing field automatically. However, there is no way to introduce logic (ie: raise your event) without managing the backing field(s) yourself.

It generates a backing field for you when it gets compiled. You cannot access it via intellisense because it has not been created yet. It is equivalent to the following where '_a' has not been generated yet.
private int _a;
public int a
{
get { return _a; }
set { _a = value; }
}
You could, however, simply set the property itself from inside of your class.
public int a { get; set; }
a = ...;
Additionally, you can set modifiers on the get and set if you only want to be able to set it internally;
public int a { get; private set; }

Following the DRY principle in ASP.NET

I have just recently got involved in a classic ASP.NET project which contains lots of storing and reading values from the session and query strings. This could look something like the following:
Session["someKey"]=someValue;
And somewhere else in the code the value in the session is read. Clearly this violates the DRY principle since you'll have the literal string key spread out all over the code. One way to avoid this could be to store all keys as constants that could be referenced everywhere there is a need to read and write to the session. But I'm not sure that's the best way to do it. How would you recommend I best handle this so that I don't violate the DRY principle?

Create a separate public class where you can define your constants, e.g
public class SessionVars
{
public const string SOME_KEY = "someKey";
public const string SOME_OTHER_KEY = "someOtherKey";
}
and then anywhere in your code you can access session variables like this:
Session[SessionVars.SOME_KEY]=someValue;
This way you can get IntelliSence and other bells and whistles.

I think you're reading too much into DRY. I pertains more to things that could be wrapped up in a function. I.e. instead of repeating the same fives lines all over the place wrap those 5 lines in a function and call the function everywhere you need it.
What you have as an example is just setting a value in a dictionary (the session object in this case), and that is the simplest way to store and retrieve objects in it.

I can't remember for the life of me where I humbly re-purposed this code from, but it's pretty nice:
using System;
using System.Web;
namespace Project.Web.UI.Domain
{
public abstract class SessionBase<T> where T : class, new()
{
private static readonly Object _padlock = new Object();
private static string Key
{
get { return typeof(SessionBase<T>).FullName; }
}
public static T Current
{
get
{
var instance = HttpContext.Current.Session[Key] as T;
lock (SessionBase<T>._padlock)
{
if (instance == null)
{
HttpContext.Current.Session[Key]
= instance
= new T();
}
}
return instance;
}
}
public static void Clear()
{
var instance = HttpContext.Current.Session[Key] as T;
if (instance != null)
{
lock (SessionBase<T>._padlock)
{
HttpContext.Current.Session[Key] = null;
}
}
}
}
}
The idea behind it two fold. The type created should be the only type you need. It's basically a big strongly-typed wrapper. So you have some object you want to keep extending information in:
public class MyClass
{
public MyClass()
public string Blah1 { get; set; }
}
Then down the road you extend MyClass and you don't want to have to remember all the Key Values, store them in AppSettings or Const variables in Static Classes. You simply define what you want to store:
public class MyClassSession : SessionBase<MyClass>
{
}
And anywhere in your program you simply use the class.
// Any Asp.Net method (webforms or mvc)
public void SetValueMethod()
{
MyClassSesssion.Current.Blah1 = "asdf";
}
public string GetValueMethod()
{
return MyClassSession.Current.Blah1;
}

Optionally you could place the access to this session object in a base page and wrap it in a property:
class BasePage : Page
{
...
public string MySessionObject
{
get
{
if(Session["myKey"] == null)
return string.Empty;
return Session["myKey"].ToString();
}
set
{
Session["myKey"] = value;
}
}
...
}
Here you are repeating the myKey string but it is encapsulated into the property. If you want to go to the extreme of avoiding this, create a constant with the key and replace the string.